But unlike other iOS devices, it sports stereo speakers.

Developer Jeff Atwood got his iPad mini delivered two days early. But instead of delighting in his fortune, he handed it over to the DIY repair experts at iFixit, who immediately put it under the knife for one of the company's thorough teardowns. Once inside, iFixit discovered that this iPad is a lot like a big iPod touch, in terms of design and architecture.

When the original iPad was first announced in 2010, critics panned the device as being "just a big iPod touch." We quickly learned that its large, expansive screen offered new kinds of touch interaction that just weren't possible on smaller iOS devices. And while iPads, iPhones, and iPod touches have shared many architectural and design similarities, the new iPad mini is clearly more similar to the latest fifth-generation iPod touch than any previous iPad or iPod touch.

Like the iPod touch, the iPad mini casing is carved from solid aluminum, with rounded rear edges and chamfered front edges where the aluminum meets the front glass. It uses metal for the volume buttons and mute switch. It has a rear-facing 5MP autofocus camera and a front-facing FaceTime HD camera. And it's all powered by Apple's 32nm A5 mobile processor.

There are differences, though, besides its obvious larger size and 7.9", 1024×768 pixel, 4:3 screen. The front glass is still separate from the touchscreen display panel, like its larger iPad siblings. Apple has fused the display and front glass in its latest iPhone and iPod touch, as well as newer Retina MacBook Pros and iMacs, to make these devices even thinner. We wonder if this decision is a nod to the education market, where Apple expects this device to be very popular; the separate glass is easier and cheaper to repair when damaged compared to a whole display assembly.

Enlarge/ A first for iOS devices: stereophonic sound, no headphones required.

iFixit also found one particularly interesting feature of the iPad mini: it's the only iOS device that includes stereo speakers thus far. Though the iPhone has two grilles on its bottom, one is for a speaker, and the other for a microphone. And both the iPod touch and full-size iPad only have a single mono speaker. It's odd that stereo sound—a feature commonly touted by Android tablet makers—would make its first appearance on what is arguably an entry-level device. We hope Apple sees fit to move this feature up to the iPad at the very least—the iPhone and iPod touch might be constrained for space, but the iPad is not.

The rest of the components are effectively bog-standard for iOS devices, including Broadcom touch controllers, a Murata radio module, Hynix NAND flash, and some Apple-branded ICs built by Cirrus Logic. In what may be a bit of a surprise to some, the particular iPad mini that iFixit tore down includes a Samsung display, despite rumors that Samsung had been cut off as a display supplier for that device.

50 Reader Comments

And also just $20 more expensive than an iPod touch, running usually far more feature-rich iPad apps rather than iPhone apps (the key reason I'm personally unwilling to call it a "large iPod touch"). A pretty good deal, if you can take the larger size and don't actually need it to be as small as an iPod touch. With the diminishing iPod sales, maybe it can even lead to the cancellation of these "iTouches".

Apple has fused the display and front glass in its latest iPhone and iPod touch, as well as newer Retina MacBook Pros and iMacs, to make these devices even thinner. We wonder if this decision wasn't a nod to the education market, where Apple expects this device to be very popular; the separate glass is easier and cheaper to repair when damaged compared to a whole display assembly.

The sacrifices made in the name of thin make me sad sometimes. Especially on a $1,600 laptop!

And also just $20 more expensive than an iPod touch, running usually far more feature-rich iPad apps rather than iPhone apps (the key reason I'm personally unwilling to call it a "large iPod touch"). A pretty good deal, if you can take the larger size and don't actually need it to be as small as an iPod touch. With the diminishing iPod sales, maybe it can even lead to the cancellation of these "iTouches".

It will probably cannabilize some of them, but it's still harder to fit in your pants pocket on the go. Although I assume then you collide a lot with the iPhone, so I don't know.

Apple has fused the display and front glass in its latest iPhone and iPod touch, as well as newer Retina MacBook Pros and iMacs, to make these devices even thinner. We wonder if this decision wasn't a nod to the education market, where Apple expects this device to be very popular; the separate glass is easier and cheaper to repair when damaged compared to a whole display assembly.

The sacrifices made in the name of thin make me sad sometimes. Especially on a $1,600 laptop!

It might make them thinner, but it provides a better viewing experience as well. it sucks for repairs, though.

As someone else pointed out the iPod Touch is a bit pricey for being smaller then a iPad mini. If for example you have a iPhone but also want more of a tablet for travel. The iPad Mini seems to fit the bill more then a Touch. Even a person shopping for a media device would most certainly get a better deal with a iPad Mini then iPod Touch. But then again I have always questioned iPod pricing since the iPhone came out. Maybe that's why iPod sales have fallen 19% year over year. Their is a whole lot less interest in them since the iPhones and iPads.

Apple has fused the display and front glass in its latest iPhone and iPod touch, as well as newer Retina MacBook Pros and iMacs, to make these devices even thinner. We wonder if this decision wasn't a nod to the education market, where Apple expects this device to be very popular; the separate glass is easier and cheaper to repair when damaged compared to a whole display assembly.

The sacrifices made in the name of thin make me sad sometimes. Especially on a $1,600 laptop!

It might make them thinner, but it provides a better viewing experience as well. it sucks for repairs, though.

I have a hard time believing you can see the difference without trying to see the difference.

And also just $20 more expensive than an iPod touch, running usually far more feature-rich iPad apps rather than iPhone apps (the key reason I'm personally unwilling to call it a "large iPod touch"). A pretty good deal, if you can take the larger size and don't actually need it to be as small as an iPod touch. With the diminishing iPod sales, maybe it can even lead to the cancellation of these "iTouches".

Well, $30 more expensive, half the storage space, with approximately the same number of pixels.

I've owned the new ipod touch for a week now, and have to say it's a phenomenal device, and the refresh should spur sales, since the old design had been on the market for ~2 years. Because it's so portable, I just don't see it occupying the same market as an 8" tablet.

Apple has fused the display and front glass in its latest iPhone and iPod touch, as well as newer Retina MacBook Pros and iMacs, to make these devices even thinner. We wonder if this decision wasn't a nod to the education market, where Apple expects this device to be very popular; the separate glass is easier and cheaper to repair when damaged compared to a whole display assembly.

The sacrifices made in the name of thin make me sad sometimes. Especially on a $1,600 laptop!

It might make them thinner, but it provides a better viewing experience as well. it sucks for repairs, though.

I have a hard time believing you can see the difference without trying to see the difference.

It might not be a huge difference, but it does look nicer. Mostly, it's brighter, less reflective, and the image appears closer to the surface.

Well, $30 more expensive, half the storage space, with approximately the same number of pixels.

I've owned the new ipod touch for a week now, and have to say it's a phenomenal device, and the refresh should spur sales, since the old design had been on the market for ~2 years. Because it's so portable, I just don't see it occupying the same market as an 8" tablet.

I agree. I don't see much overlap. You can easily put an iPod in any pocket (pants, shirts) while an iPad mini will only fit in Jacket pockets.

The iPod is more of an "always with you" portable device, the iPad Mini is more of "sometimes with you" easily transportable device.

I Also think it has a lot more in common with iPad 2, than iPod Touch. Same aspect, same pixel count, same SoC, and MUCH closer in size:

What I find odd about the stereo speakers:As far as I can see, they are at the bottom of the devices (like on the bigger iPads). But if you watch a video - where it makes most sense to have stereo sound - you are probably holding the device in landscape mode. But then both speakers are on one side of the device instead of being left *and* right.

So is it really to have stereo sound or just to have better sound in such a small space?

I find it hard to believe that stereo speakers matter on these small devices. Unless you're a pinhead, you won't be able to squeeze yourself into the "sound stage" that two small adjacent speakers can project.

Also, on my ipad 1, I find myself putting my hand behind the speaker to reflect sound back toward me when it's not loud enough. The greatest advantage for two speakers would be when one was inadvertently covered/muted by the user's hand (this happens with iphones sometimes--it is also quicker to mute than finding the volume controls or wailing on the home button to stop unintended loud app music!).

Also, I'm surprised that I didn't notice the ipad mini's price in comparison to the ipod touch. That is surprising that they're only 30 bucks apart, though the gap widens with any options (maxed out lte mini is a LOT more than 30$ more.

What I find odd about the stereo speakers:As far as I can see, they are at the bottom of the devices (like on the bigger iPads). But if you watch a video - where it makes most sense to have stereo sound - you are probably holding the device in landscape mode. But then both speakers are on one side of the device instead of being left *and* right.

So is it really to have stereo sound or just to have better sound in such a small space?

The think I think about most WRT to the stereo speaks is that when you're holding an iOS device in landscape orientation, it's not hard to cover up one of the speakers. If there are two, at least you'll be getting some sound out.

I also think the added speaker is more for sound volume than stereo imaging.

Really, when you think about it, putting speakers on any device like this presents a number of challenges: size, position, stereo separation, quality, etc. You put them on the back, and suddenly all the sound is pointing away from the listener. Put them on the short side, and then there's not enough stereo imaging. Put them on the long side, then you have to decide left or right. Put them on both sides for portrait and landscape use, now you have to jam in more components and figure out a way to turn them on off when the user rotates the device...

Also, I'm surprised that I didn't notice the ipad mini's price in comparison to the ipod touch. That is surprising that they're only 30 bucks apart, though the gap widens with any options (maxed out lte mini is a LOT more than 30$ more.

Apples to Apples config:

New iPod touch 32 GB: $299New iPad Mini 32 GB: $429

It is just that there is no entry level for the New iPod Touch, so they can keep selling old generation iPod touches as entry level and make more profit. Eventually the old iPod touch will go away and there will be an entry level Touch of the new design.

As someone else pointed out the iPod Touch is a bit pricey for being smaller then a iPad mini. If for example you have a iPhone but also want more of a tablet for travel. The iPad Mini seems to fit the bill more then a Touch. Even a person shopping for a media device would most certainly get a better deal with a iPad Mini then iPod Touch. But then again I have always questioned iPod pricing since the iPhone came out. Maybe that's why iPod sales have fallen 19% year over year. Their is a whole lot less interest in them since the iPhones and iPads.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 19% decline in iPod sales is due in part to Spotify becoming available in the US. Here's the way I look at it: buy songs on iTunes (which is really just buying the ability to place the song file on a device to listen to) for $1 a song, or $9.99 a month for unlimited streaming, and placing an unlimited number of songs on a supported device (iPods included btw). The math adds up to: listen to 10 songs a month and get your money's worth versus iTunes.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 19% decline in iPod sales is due in part to Spotify becoming available in the US. Here's the way I look at it: buy songs on iTunes (which is really just buying the ability to place the song file on a device to listen to) for $1 a song, or $9.99 a month for unlimited streaming, and placing an unlimited number of songs on a supported device (iPods included btw). The math adds up to: listen to 10 songs a month and get your money's worth versus iTunes.

It is rent vs buy. I have no interest being on the hook for endless rental fees.

In 5 years at the same rates. You own 600 songs that you can play anywhere, anytime with iTunes, and with spotify you own nothing and have to keep paying to play on approved devices only.

We wonder if this decision is a nod to the education market, where Apple expects this device to be very popular; the separate glass is easier and cheaper to repair when damaged compared to a whole display assembly.

Not really thinking this has anything to do with the edu sector... simply a way to easily diversify their displays (manufacture) based on demand, etc...

When devices that are easily broken are deployed in schools most school get ADP insurance from places like http://www.worthavegroup.com/ that cover not only warranty related repairs, but also damage, at little to no deductible. Most times these 3rd party insurances are way cheaper and more flexible than Apple's offerings. Beyond that these repairs (if you want it to stay under warranty) can not be done in house, unless something has changed on apple's side...

As someone else pointed out the iPod Touch is a bit pricey for being smaller then a iPad mini. If for example you have a iPhone but also want more of a tablet for travel. The iPad Mini seems to fit the bill more then a Touch. Even a person shopping for a media device would most certainly get a better deal with a iPad Mini then iPod Touch. But then again I have always questioned iPod pricing since the iPhone came out. Maybe that's why iPod sales have fallen 19% year over year. Their is a whole lot less interest in them since the iPhones and iPads.

Agreed, but I think that the iPod Touch is a great fit for people who want the apps but not the phone. I know a bunch of people who like their oldschool flip phones with no data plan and cheap minutes but want an iDevice to use on wifi around the house or on the go. Facebook, Music whatever. . it makes sense for some. It also fits into the profile for a kids toy. Expensive but quite flexible compared to other portable gaming devices. cmon when a game costs $2.99 and DS games are $20 the cost evens out. and a DS can't play music or movies. There is certainly a market for it.

Apple has fused the display and front glass in its latest iPhone and iPod touch, as well as newer Retina MacBook Pros and iMacs, to make these devices even thinner. We wonder if this decision wasn't a nod to the education market, where Apple expects this device to be very popular; the separate glass is easier and cheaper to repair when damaged compared to a whole display assembly.

The sacrifices made in the name of thin make me sad sometimes. Especially on a $1,600 laptop!

Technically it also reduces reflections by 47% and therefore minimizes the backlight strength and battery drain by 9% or something. Others have done the measurements.

What I find odd about the stereo speakers:As far as I can see, they are at the bottom of the devices (like on the bigger iPads). But if you watch a video - where it makes most sense to have stereo sound - you are probably holding the device in landscape mode. But then both speakers are on one side of the device instead of being left *and* right.

So is it really to have stereo sound or just to have better sound in such a small space?

The think I think about most WRT to the stereo speaks is that when you're holding an iOS device in landscape orientation, it's not hard to cover up one of the speakers. If there are two, at least you'll be getting some sound out.

I also think the added speaker is more for sound volume than stereo imaging.

Really, when you think about it, putting speakers on any device like this presents a number of challenges: size, position, stereo separation, quality, etc. You put them on the back, and suddenly all the sound is pointing away from the listener. Put them on the short side, and then there's not enough stereo imaging. Put them on the long side, then you have to decide left or right. Put them on both sides for portrait and landscape use, now you have to jam in more components and figure out a way to turn them on off when the user rotates the device...

Eventually devices could have 3 speakers and L R will be dermined based on orientation (just like the screen)... grrr i should patent that oh well.

The sacrifices made in the name of thin make me sad sometimes. Especially on a $1,600 laptop!

It might make them thinner, but it provides a better viewing experience as well. it sucks for repairs, though.

As a customer, the repair cost might end up being the same. Instead of taking apart the whole screen section to put in a new display, they simply replace the whole head section. The head might cost more as a whole, but considering reduction in separate stocks, shipping and labour, it may just balance out.

As for the discrete components, well they are being fused together in many ways too. Just consider how much is on the single main chip, compared to a few years ago.

If you were planning on fixing it yourself, well modern technology is generally less fixable.

As for the comment that it is a 'big iPod touch', well it might be, but the screen size does make a difference to how you interact with it and what you use it for.

Eventually devices could have 3 speakers and L R will be dermined based on orientation (just like the screen)... grrr i should patent that oh well.

That could work, but the speakers would have to placed in the corners to ensure that no matter the angle of rotation the speaks are always along the right axis and distance apart relative to the center. On the other hand, for a device this small people are usually putting their own headphones anyhow or external speakers, when it matters.

As someone else pointed out the iPod Touch is a bit pricey for being smaller then a iPad mini. If for example you have a iPhone but also want more of a tablet for travel. The iPad Mini seems to fit the bill more then a Touch. Even a person shopping for a media device would most certainly get a better deal with a iPad Mini then iPod Touch. But then again I have always questioned iPod pricing since the iPhone came out. Maybe that's why iPod sales have fallen 19% year over year. Their is a whole lot less interest in them since the iPhones and iPads.

Agreed, but I think that the iPod Touch is a great fit for people who want the apps but not the phone. I know a bunch of people who like their oldschool flip phones with no data plan and cheap minutes but want an iDevice to use on wifi around the house or on the go. Facebook, Music whatever. . it makes sense for some. It also fits into the profile for a kids toy. Expensive but quite flexible compared to other portable gaming devices. cmon when a game costs $2.99 and DS games are $20 the cost evens out. and a DS can't play music or movies. There is certainly a market for it.

THIS. We got my 5yo a kids "learning" game system. For it;s price, the price of quality content, a case, batteries it eats way too fast, in the 2 years she's had it she's damned near close to $300 invested in it, and I could not sell it for $50 all inclusive if i tried. And, she'll play $2 or free games on my wife's iPhone in a second over playing on her personal system (which are more educational, more engaging, and look 100 times better so it;s not surprising). Paying $30 for a princess game on her system that plays at something like 8FPS, has fewer pixels than a cheap blackberry, uses hard to understand (for a toddler) button controlls instead of touch, and has near zero replayability or growth, just mass repetition of a few simple drills, bleh.

I'm upgrading to an iP5 from my iP4 in a few weeks, I'll get a kid-friendly case for it and hald the old phone off to her in a second, disconnected from any data plans and properly locked down, and filled with video and learning games (not to mention what she can stream on it at home). Considdering what I spent on on what she already has, had i known, i would have bought an iPod 2 years ago and been a lot happier. (plus, having multiople iDevices, if she leaves hers at home, we can hand off ours and she can use the same apps..., can;t do that with those preschool game things).

The sacrifices made in the name of thin make me sad sometimes. Especially on a $1,600 laptop!

It might make them thinner, but it provides a better viewing experience as well. it sucks for repairs, though.

As a customer, the repair cost might end up being the same. Instead of taking apart the whole screen section to put in a new display, they simply replace the whole head section. The head might cost more as a whole, but considering reduction in separate stocks, shipping and labour, it may just balance out.

As for the discrete components, well they are being fused together in many ways too. Just consider how much is on the single main chip, compared to a few years ago.

If you were planning on fixing it yourself, well modern technology is generally less fixable.

As for the comment that it is a 'big iPod touch', well it might be, but the screen size does make a difference to how you interact with it and what you use it for.

For replacing the whole screen, yes, sure. For replacing the glass-only, especially on hpones, a $30 digitizer laced piece of glass is not a $7+0 screen For laptops that goes up a lot faster, though, honestly, laptops traditionally didn;t have the glass to start with, so what's changed?

Since the speaker is divided into two by the port in the center anyway you'd have to use two mono speakers which would be a bit silly. I think stereo is just something that came as a free bonus from this design. Certainly won't do any harm.

I think the placement of speakers is somewhat unsatisfactory in most devices anyway. Putting them at the back is totally daft. The Nexus 7 has the speaker at the rounded bottom pointing half down, half back and both volume and sound are not very good. Skype is only halfway useable even in a very quiet room.

At the side/bottom is only slightly better. Actually they belong onto the front of the device, but then you'd need to have some holes or grilles in the glas front which probably would be more expensive and hard to design in a pleasant way. I'm wondering if you could thin the glas far enough in the bezels to actually use it as a speaker membrane, but this certainly wouldn't be cheap or easy to manufacture.

I also think the added speaker is more for sound volume than stereo imaging.

This.

I now use my iPad 2 for about 80% of my media consumption (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Youtube) and my biggest complaint is the poor volume of the internal speaker. Even at max volume it is hard to hear if you have any other ambient noise in the room such as an air conditioner, fan, or kids in the room.

Wearing headphones all the time is not an option. I have been hoping that the newer models would have some way of improving the overall sound level if not the quality.

We wonder if this decision is a nod to the education market, where Apple expects this device to be very popular; the separate glass is easier and cheaper to repair when damaged compared to a whole display assembly.

As someone who has replaced several iPhone screens from the 1G to the 4S, I never understood how someone could make the "easier to repair" comment in regards to the glass+LCD.

For the 3GS and earlier, the prices are generally around $10 for either the LCD or front glass at this point (ealistically they are around $15 with shipping and everything). For the iPhone 4, the glass + LCD is around $30 all the same.

Now, the $30 isn't all that much for anyone who bought an iPhone with a $70 monthly contract. Even if the extra $15 was a deal breaker for the penny-pinching iPhone user who uses a pay-as-you-go plan (like I do), the actual difference between the "easier to sepearate" in earlier iPhones means is huge.

"Easier to repair" for those means using a hairdryer/heatgun for an hour to warm up the glue to seperate the parts. Then, because the repair is most likely being done because the glass is cracked, you have to remove shards of glass that are only being held together with the glue (on the ends), and otherwise deal with tiny pieces falling all over the place. Don't forget to make sure you then don't blow the shards around with the hairdryer when you go back for the second attempt because you didn't get it hot enough the first time or took too long prying tiny pieces of glass off that it cooled down.

My point? Just because those two parts *can* be seperated doesn't make the repair any easier. Maybe under perfect circumstances or a clean break in glass, but realistically that doesn't happen very often (at least on the iPhones). For me, being able to easily purchase the parts together and "preassembled" is the difference between a 10 minute repair and a 45 minute - 1 hour+ repair.

THAT BEING SAID, when it comes to the iPad this could definitely come down to cost as the LCD assembly can be quite pricy itself, but that doesn't make the bonding process universally "easier" to repair across every Apple product that uses it.

++ Come on Chris. Everyone knows the opposite of Mini is Maxi (Big or Jumbo=fail). You gotta work Maxi into the mix. At least go with something boring like iPod Touch Maxi, if you need to stay away from Zero2360's crude but perfect name.